What If Crude Oil Is Likely NOT Fossil Fuel! Not Created From Dead Dinosaurs and Plant Life? Likely Is Available Continuously And In Almost Limitless Supply?
OF COURSE! It's the damned Illuminati fucking it up for everyone AGAIN!
Cheers!
What If Crude Oil Is Likely NOT Fossil Fuel! Not Created From Dead Dinosaurs and Plant Life? Likely Is Available Continuously And In Almost Limitless Supply?
OF COURSE! It's the damned Illuminati fucking it up for everyone AGAIN!
Cheers!
It makes sense to deny dinosaurs their (rightful) place in history when you believe the world to be only 6000 years old, Izzy.
What yanks my chain is how the fundies cherry pick their 'science'. That's as hypocritical as me quoting random god book (choose your own flavour) stories.
It's like saying 'I don't believe any of this bullshit, but I'll use it to bolster my argument.'
My friends call me Izzy, ashstralia.
You may call me Mr. Sylicker.
Thank you.
Cheers!
Duly noted, Mr. Slicker.
Thank you for correctly spelling my name, Sir!
There are stupid people posting pages on the internet? Holy shit!
WND
A study published in Science Magazine today presents new evidence supporting the abiotic theory for the origin of oil, which asserts oil is a natural product the Earth generates constantly rather than a “fossil fuel” derived from decaying ancient forests and dead dinosaurs.
The lead scientist on the study Giora Proskurowski of the School of Oceanography at the University of Washington in Seattle says the hydrogen-rich fluids venting at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean in the Lost City Hydrothermal Field were produced by the abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons in the mantle of the earth.
The abiotic theory of the origin of oil directly challenges the conventional scientific theory that hydrocarbons are organic in nature, created by the deterioration of biological material deposited millions of years ago in sedimentary rock and converted to hydrocarbons under intense heat and pressure.
While organic theorists have posited that the material required to produce hydrocarbons in sedimentary rock came from dinosaurs and ancient forests, more recent argument have suggested living organisms as small as plankton may have been the origin.
The abiotic theory argues, in contrast, that hydrocarbons are naturally produced on a continual basis throughout the solar system, including within the mantle of the earth. The advocates believe the oil seeps up through bedrock cracks to deposit in sedimentary rock. Traditional petro-geologists, they say, have confused the rock as the originator rather than the depository of the hydrocarbons.
Giora Proskurowski
Lost City is a hypothermal field some 2,100 feet below sea level that sits along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge at the center of the Atlantic Ocean, noted for strange 90 to 200 foot white towers on the sea bottom.
In 2003 and again in 2005, Proskurowski and his team descended in a scientific submarine to collect liquid bubbling up from Lost City sea vents.
Proskurowski found hydrocarbons containing carbon-13 isotopes that appeared to be formed from the mantle of the Earth, rather than from biological material settled on the ocean floor.
Carbon 13 is the carbon isotope scientists associate with abiotic origin, compared to Carbon 12 that scientists typically associate with biological origin.
Proskurowski argued that the hydrocarbons found in the natural hydrothermal fluids coming out of the Lost City sea vents is attributable to abiotic production by Fischer-Tropsch, or FTT, reactions.
The Fischer-Tropsch equations were first developed by Nazi scientists who created methodologies for producing synthetic oil from coal.
“Our findings illustrate that the abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons in nature may occur in the presence of ultramafic rocks, water and moderate amounts of heat,” Proskurowski wrote.
The study also confirmed a major argument of Cornell University physicist Thomas Gold, who argued in his book “The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels” that micro-organisms found in oil might have come from the mantle of the earth where, absent photosynthesis, the micro-organisms feed on hydrocarbons arising from the earth’s mantle in the dark depths of the ocean floors.
Affirming this point, Proskurowski concluded the article by noting, “Hydrocarbon production by FTT could be a common means for producing precursors of life-essential building blocks in ocean-floor environments or wherever warm ultramafic rocks are in contact with water.”
Finding abiotic hydrocarbons in the Lost City sea vent fluids is the second discovery in recent years adding weight to the abiotic theory of the origin of oil.
This is a 10 year old theory that came to nothing on further research.
The initial link is a stupid extension of the idea by a creationist.
No wonder Elvis calls you Smugmeister.Originally Posted by Seshmeister
There are stupid people posting pages on the internet? Holy shit!
Those people aren't stupid.
Lunatics? Acceptable. Batshit crazy? Possible. Delusional? Likely. But stupid? Nope.
Obviously a lot of research went into that theory. Whether the facts being researched were wrong or not is completely irrelevant. There still was a lot of methodical fact crossing & checking & that can only be powered by intellect.
I'll even go so far as to say they're more intelligent than you or I, 'coz I certainly couldn't come up with all that AND have alleged facts to back up my theory & you couldn't either.
Just because someone is wrong, it doesn't mean that person is stupid.
As well, the Universe has a strange sense of humour. Who's to say those guys aren't right, but for all the wrong reasons?
Cheers!
No, global interests swept it under the rug...
Peak Oil
In the West it is almost universally held that all oil and gas is derived from fossils. This is not the case elsewhere, particularly among Russian and Ukrainian scientists who have, over several generations, tenaciously propounded the notion that oil and gas are abiotic, can be found deep below the surface of the earth in most parts of the world and in very large amounts.
Western geologists and scientists find the theory either annoying or amusing and refuse to consider it seriously although there are exceptions. The theory continues to be held in much higher regard by Russian scientists and geologists (including some working in the West) for historical and perhaps ideological reasons.
Many Russian geologists and petroleum researchers credit the rise of Russia over the past 50 years as the largest producer of oil and second largest producer of natural gas in the world to the successful application of the abiogenic theory of oil and gas formation. The Russians claim to have successfully drilled over 300 ultra deep (around 40,000feet) oil and gas wells through granite and basalt based on this theory. These claims have been questioned by Western geologists and petroleum engineers.
The most recent attempt at gaining credence for the abiogenic idea was only a few months ago. A research team at the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, led by Vladimir Kutherov, demonstrated that animal and plant fossils are not necessary for producing oil and natural gas. The team simulated the thermal and pressure processes that occur in the inner layers of the earth to generate hydrocarbons, the chief component of oil and natural gas. The team also noted that oil and gas has been found 7 miles below ground in Texas and fossil oil and gas could not, via, gravity have seeped down to such depths.
According to the Prof. Kutherov all types of bedrock can serve as reservoirs of hydrocarbon energy and their method of discovery can enhance exploration success rates from 20 % to 70 %. The research team has developed a new technique for locating oil and gas resources. It consists of dividing the globe into a fine grid, which corresponds to underground fissures or migration channels. Hydrocarbon resources will be found wherever migration channels intersect, predicts the team.
An abiogenic theory of petroleum is not new, dating from the 16th century .In the 19th century two very accomplished scientists, Alexander von Humboldt and Dimitri Mendeleev( of the Periodic Table fame) advanced the concept. In the 20th century the Russian- Ukrainian School of geology emerged in the Soviet Union to vigorously formulate the modern theory of abiogenic oil and gas. In the West, the most eloquent and determined proponent was the famous astronomer Thomas Gold. After his death, Jack Kenney of Gas Resources Corporation has become the leading Western exponent.
The prevailing abiotic theory is that the full complement of hydrocarbons found in oil and gas are generated in the mantle (40 to 90 miles below the surface of the earth) by non-biological processes. These hydrocarbons then migrate out of the mantle into the crust where they escape or are trapped by impermeable strata that lead to reservoir formation.
Specific examples to support the abiotic theory have been cited over the years. Each example has been dismissed by the Western establishment as specious while it has been hailed by proponents as convincing. This is always so when a deeply entrenched belief and massive money flows encounter a subversive idea that profoundly threatens the prevailing order. The debate is becoming increasingly shrill as the two diametrically opposed views of Peak Oil and Abiogenic(Superabundant) Oil collide in a clash not only of science but, far more importantly, of money and ideology.
Specific examples cited are the impressive recharging from below, not the sides, of the Eugene Island field (wells in deep decline exhibiting sharply increased production; recovery far in excess of estimated remaining reserves) off new Orleans; the White Tiger oil field in Vietnam( discovered by a Russian company, Vietsovpetro) in fractured basement granite; the Panhandle-Hugoton field (high helium content) in Teaxs-Oklahoma, the Shengli Field and Songliao Basin in Northeastern China( supposedly mantle derived natural gas), and the well known Chimaera natural gas seep in Turkey. This seep has been known to be continuously active for thousands of years and represents the largest cataloged emission of abiogenic methane on land. The vast amounts of methane released by the biggest mud volcano eruptions are allegedly greater than found in the most abundant natural gas fields in commercial production. The presence of considerable amounts of hydrocarbons not associated with tectonic structures is also presented as evidence and, of course, the enormous methane hydrate deposits found all over the world are asserted to be of abiogenic origin. Finally, theory advocates aver that the impressive record of recent ultra deep drilling in the Gulf of Mexico supports their idea.
The matrix of scientific, political and business interests in the West, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Brazil (an emerging oil exporter of consequence) and Venezuela that refuses to countenance abiogenic theories is big and potent. These interests want oil and gas to be scarce and expensive for a variety of reasons. It is natural and understandable that no credible test of the theory will be attempted within the ambit of these interests.
The Russian authorities and oil and gas companies seem to be deeply conflicted between intellectual pride (it is their theory, after all) and the desire to keep oil and gas prices high via the idea of scarcity when talking to the rest of the world about their abiogenic oil and gas reserves.
It seems to the author, however, that China and India have compelling economic and national security interests in proving or disproving the theory, convincingly. If the theory is false then they are no worse off than today. If it is correct then they, of the major nations in the world, have the most to gain in subverting the prevailing oil and gas order of the world. So, of course, do scores of millions of ordinary Americans who care nothing about theories but want cheap, abundant, reliable oil and gas.
The theory wasn't stupid the website you posted was.No wonder Elvis calls you Smugmeister.
Those people aren't stupid.
Lunatics? Acceptable. Batshit crazy? Possible. Delusional? Likely. But stupid? Nope.
Obviously a lot of research went into that theory. Whether the facts being researched were wrong or not is completely irrelevant. There still was a lot of methodical fact crossing & checking & that can only be powered by intellect.
I'll even go so far as to say they're more intelligent than you or I, 'coz I certainly couldn't come up with all that AND have alleged facts to back up my theory & you couldn't either.
Just because someone is wrong, it doesn't mean that person is stupid.
As well, the Universe has a strange sense of humour. Who's to say those guys aren't right, but for all the wrong reasons?
Cheers!
Did you read his point #4?
Why would I do that?
I just clicked on the website, read the title & thought I'd share it.
I knew there'd be people here that would appreciate a larf.
Cheers!
Atheists don't have a sense of humor. They're pissed off 24/7 because some people have the nerve to believe in something they don't believe in. They have no problem believing a ball of gasses appeared out of nowhere and blew up forming the universe but the idea of a supreme or superior being is preposterious to them. I'm not a creationist or an evolutionist. For all I know the entire universe is just a figment of my imagination. I don't get pissed off everytime someone posts something about evolution. Maybe agnostics are the only ones with a sense of humor.
And me, of course...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote